#### WHITE *v.*MOUNT BEULAH BAPTIST CHURCH.

1. Religious Societies—Election of Officers—Courts.

A court order requiring the holding of an election *by*church members to fill various church ofiicesi and to be held under the supervision of a referee appointed by the court, and which did not contemplate action affecting property rights was void since it constituted judicial interference with the internal ' government of the church with reference to ecclesiastical matters.

2. Costs—Judicial Interference with Ecclesiastical Matters of Church.

On reversal of an order which constituted an improper judicial interference with ecclesiastical matters of a church and remand of ease for further proceedings consistent with opinion, no costs are allowed. . ■

Appeal from Wayne; Richter (Theodore J.), J.

Submitted August 26, 1947.

(Calendar No. 43,797.)

Decided December 3, 1947.

Bill by Maggie White and. others against the Mount Beulah Baptist Church, a Michigan corporation, and others for mandatory injunction requiring the holding of an election. Order entered requiring the holding of such election. Defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

*Harry N. Grossman (J. Leonard Hyman,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Donald A. Wallace,*for defendants.

*393Dethmers, J.

Plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint on December 27, 1946, alleging tbat they are members of tbe defendant Mount Beulah Baptist Cburcb; tbat tbe individual defendants named purport to act as trustees, officers, minister and assistant minister, respectively, of tbe cburcb; tbat tbe bylaws of tbe cburcb require an election of officers annually on'the Friday evening preceding January 1st of tbe following year; tbat tbe defendants failed and refused to call such an election for December 27, 1946, as required by tbe bylaws; and praying for an accounting, for suspension of tbe individual defendants from their respective cburcb offices during pendency of tbe cause, and for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to call an election of officers by tbe qualified members of tbe cburcb under tbe supervision of tbe court.

By their answer tbe defendants deny tbat plaintiffs, witb two exceptions, are members of tbe cburcb, assert tbat they have lost sucb membership by reason of nonpayment of dues, and, further, allege tbat an election of officers was held by tbe members of tbe cburcb on January 3, 1947, in accord witb tbe bylaws requiring such election to be held on tbe Friday night preceding tbe first" Sunday of tbe new year, and tbat tbe individual defendants are tbe duly elected officers and tbe ministers, respectively, of tbe cburcb.

An order to show cause why a mandatory injunction should not be granted as prayed for in plaintiffs’ bill of complaint issued and was brought on for bearing on January 13, 1947. On March 28, 1947, tbe court ordered tbat tbe defendants submit forthwith to plaintiffs’ attorney a correct list of tbe membership of tbe cburcb, tbat testimony be taken before a notary public as to tbe membership status of tbe plaintiffs, and tbat, after determination by *394the court of the qualified membership of the church, an election of officers by such qualified members be held under the supervision of a referee appointed by the court. From this order, upon leave granted by this Court, defendants appeal.

Defendants state the question involved as follows:

“Has the court jurisdiction to inquire into the regularity of a church election and determine who are qualified members for this purpose?”

Plaintiffs’ counter-statement of the question involved reads:

‘ ‘ The sole question confronting this Court is: Has a court of equity jurisdiction and power to order the holding of an election where it has made a finding that such election in an ecclesiastical organization was not held in pursuance of the bylaws and constitution of said ecclesiastical corporation?”

Subsequent to the trial court’s order the opinion of this Court was handed down in *Berry*v. *Bruce,*317 Mich. 490, in which the authorities on the general question here presented are fully reviewed. We deem the reasoning of that opinion to be applicable in the instant case. As in the *Berry Case,*the order here appealed from does not contemplate action affecting property rights, but constitutes judicial interference with the internal government of the church with reference to ecclesiastical matters.

The order is reversed and the cause remanded for such further proceedings, not inconsistent herewith, as may be indicated by the pleadings.

No costs are allowed. See *Berry*v. *Bruce, supra.*

Carr, C. „J., and Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Bo.yles, Reiú, and North, JJ., concurred.